Software - American Society for Quality

Software - American Society for Quality




2nd Quarter, 2011

Software Division leadership at WCQI. (L-R, Back row: Hank Sobah, Murali Krishnan, Greg Zimmerman, David Walker, Mark

Paulk, Stuart Yarost, Dean Sellis. Middle row: Linda Westfall, Nancy Pasquan, Jessie Schultz (ASQ Community Development),

Louise Tamres, Brenda Fisk, Kristal Ray. Front row: Carol Dekkers, Bob Stoddard, Sue Carroll)


Articles & News

• Interview with the Incoming


• ISE 2011 Conference


Software Division Hospitality

Suite at WCQI

• Pathways to Social Responsibility

2011 Conference


• IEEE P730 Working

Group Update

• Standards Report


• CSQE Exam Development


• Planning for ISE 2012


• Chair’s Message

• From the Regions

• SQP Journal Article of

the Quarter

• CSQE Quiz

Questions or



Greg Zimmerman, Chair

Kandy Senthilmaran, Chair-Elect

Murali Krishnan, Secretary

Brenda Fisk, Treasurer


Chair’s Message

I am your new Division Chair.

I won’t go into a bunch of background here. For

that, read Nicole Radziwill’s interview with me in this

issue. I will tell you that I’ve been a Software Division

member for over 10 years, and involved with the

Division’s leadership for going on four years.

The Software Division has been doing well. Over

the past three years, we have held five very successful

conferences - 2 ICSQ and 3 ISE - and one not so

successful WCSQ. Between conferences and management

of the Division assets, we are in a fairly

strong position. Several new volunteer leaders have

been recruited, and our relationships with other ASQ

divisions are strengthening.

On the other hand, the Software Division is experiencing

a lot of challenges. There are many groups,

organizations, Meetups, conferences, and other

interests competing with ASQ in the software arena.

Our membership continues to dwindle, slowly but

surely. I believe a large part of this is that we have a

perception problem, the perception being that ASQ

is, well, old school. We need to reconnect with current

development trends, application lifecycle management

practices, methodologies, tools, and approaches

to testing. We need to remind the software

community and business consumers that customer

involvement is not a new concept. (The Software Division

position statement on Agile Methods in Software

Projects, published earlier this year, was a good

start in this direction.) We also need to find better

and more exciting ways to communicate those old

school proven truths such as the value of planning,

design, measurement, and process improvement.

Most importantly, we need to make clear the point

that just about everybody uses software in some

way today, and therefore everybody has a reason to

be passionate about the quality of software.

Due to a change in ASQ’s fiscal policy - moving

from the current July 1 to June 30 annual reporting

period to a calendar year (with a “shortened

fiscal year” ending December 31, 2011), I have

the rare opportunity to serve an extra six months

as Chair of the Software Division, 2.5 years instead

of 2. I am taking advantage of that extra time to fill

existing openings on the Division council and formalize

additional roles that have heretofore gone

somewhat unrecognized. I’m counting on those

fresh perspectives to help us with the membership

and marketing challenges, and help increase the

value we can provide to our members. Right now,

I’m looking for volunteers to spend a few hours each

month in one of the following roles:

• Newsletter Editor

• Vice Chair, Communications

• Regional Councilors

• Marketing committee

• Education committee

• Standards committee

We are also always looking for people to write

articles for the Software Quality Professional journal

and for the newsletter.

Contact me directly if you are interested in becoming

involved. Help shape the future of software quality

and the Software Division!

Greg Zimmerman, CSQE

Chair, ASQ Software Division

The ASQ Software Division Throws a “Quality

Hospitality Event at WCQI 2011!

Software Division booth in the exhibit hall at WCQI.

Magician Nathan Coe Marsh, Murali Krishnan, Brenda Fisk, Linda Westfall

By Nancy Hollimon

Every year at the WCQI, the Software Division

not only holds a great program for the conference

attendees but they also have a wonderful hospitality

event which serves as an

opportunity for old friends to

catch up, to meet new people

and for our ASQ divisions and

sections to mingle.

At this year’s event, we were

given a warm welcome at

the open door of the suite by

Brenda Fisk. She had prepared

a fun game for us to play as

we went from room to room

talking with others, nibbling

on the yummy appetizers and

listening to music in the background.

My personal favorite

was Nathan, the magician, who

entertained everyone with his

skillful magic tricks. He was kind enough to let me

video one of his tricks so I could amaze my children

when I returned home.

A great time was had by all who were there (and

was unofficially voted the best hospitality event at

the conference!), but more

importantly, it was the people

of the Software Division

that encouraged the notion

that everyone was welcome

that helped break down the

walls. This enabled us, despite

being from different

industries and professions, to

learn from each other about

our common passion for

quality and improvement.

Be sure to join the Software

Division hospitality event at

your next WCQI! The doors

are always open.

Stuart Yarost and Nancy Hollimon


Interview with Greg Zimmerman, Incoming Chair of the ASQ Software


By Nicole Radziwill, Immediate Past Chair

Nicole: Hi Greg. Thanks so much for taking the time

to do this interview. We're really excited to hear

more about your background and your vision for the

ASQ Software Division. So to start off, tell us a little

about yourself. Where are you from? How did you

get involved in the software profession?

Greg: My pleasure. Thanks for asking.

I've lived in Ohio all my life. I actually sort of stumbled

into the software profession. I studied psychology

and sociology in college. When I was working in

a customer support role where part of the job was to

test fixes to problems I'd helped identify, I made an

immediate connection to the fact that there was a

control, a variable, and a hypothesis, just like in social

theory testing. The existing program was the control,

the new program the variable, and the hypothesis

that the new program would cause the behavior

of the data processing to change in a specific manner.

From there I learned about software configuration

management, requirements engineering, release

processes, and so on. A couple of jobs later, I joined

a team that was talking about certifications in software

quality, and was thus introduced to ASQ.

Nicole: How many years have you been working

in software? Have you always had quality-related


Greg: I have been working in software or IT governance

for about 15 years. With the exception of

a couple years in customer service straight out of

school, software quality has been my entire career.

Nicole: How long have you been a member of ASQ?

Of the Software Division? What prompted you to

join the Software Division?

Greg: I joined ASQ and the Software Division when I

applied for the CSQE exam in 2001.

Nicole: Has the CSQE helped you over the past 10


Greg: Certification was really a launching point for

my career. I learned a few new things in a refresher

course before taking the exam, but mainly it was

recognition that I had decided upon a career in software

quality. That helped me set long term goals.

Nicole: Wonderful! So sometime after you were

successful in the pursuit of your CSQE, you started

volunteering your time to the Software Division.

What prompted you to get involved?

Greg: I participated in a workshop to update the

CSQE Body of Knowledge in the summer of 2007. It

was a really great experience and I had the chance to

chat with the CSQE exam chair at the time. I asked

her how she got to be involved in the role, what she

got out of it, and what kind of time commitment

was involved. After completing a second workshop

I found myself excited at the prospect of getting involved.

I checked out the Software Division web site

and saw there was an opening for a Regional Councilor

in my region, so I contacted the Chair and voilà,

I was on the division council.

Nicole: What's been the most fulfilling aspect of

working with the Software Division over the past few


Greg: The three things I've enjoyed the most about

volunteering are the people, the programs, and the

leadership opportunities.

I've made hundreds of connections with other quality

professionals, and gained several friends in the

process. Being involved with the Software Division

has also enabled me to participate in the planning

and execution of several conferences. It's really cool

to see and to have an influence on how conference

programs come together.

As for leadership opportunities, they are abundant,

and limited only by your passion. There are multiple

Greg Zimmerman and Murali Krishnan


roles in the division council and on conference committees,

journal and newsletter articles to be written

or reviewed, and speaking opportunities at conferences,

to name a few. I have had the chance to step

up and help out with several council roles in my few

years as a volunteer. It was an honor when my peers

asked me to take on the Chair-Elect role two years

ago, and I hope I continue to do them justice in my

tenure as Chair.

Nicole: What is your vision for the Division over the

next few years?

Greg: To bring the Software Division into the 21st

century. I think there has been a perception that we

are only valuable to people in organizations following

the CMMi or in government regulated industries.

We need to beat down those walls. Software is used

everywhere, all industries, all types or organizations,

and for all kinds of needs. The Software Division mission

is to be the leading global authority, nexus for

knowledge, and recognized champion for excellence

in software. There is a lot of marketing and organizational

evolution in our future in order to achieve that


Nicole: Definitely. So within that context, what ONE

piece of advice would you give our members to help

them leverage the many opportunities provided by

the Division?

Greg: Get involved. Tell us what you're looking for,

what you need to help you grow and succeed in this

field. Take positive action to drive change or the creation

of new resources. And invite others who may

be looking for the same thing to be a part of it.

Nicole: And speaking of the profession in general,

what's the one piece of advice you'd pass on from

what you’ve learned over your decade and a half in

software quality?

Greg: Software is about change, and change is a

people game. Understand your customers' needs.

Understand your organization's goals. Do what you

can to build an SDLC and management practices that

are supportive of both.

Nicole: Thanks so much Greg! It's been a pleasure to

interview you. We are very pleased to welcome you

on as Chair of the Software Division.

Greg: Thank you, Nicole.

IEEE Standard 730 (SQA)

Working Group

By Sue Carroll

The seventh face-to-face meeting of the IEEE P730

working group was held in Cambridge, MA. Steve

Rakitin was an excellent host for the meeting and

got a lot of local interest. The meeting was held at

the Microsoft facilities in Cambridge right near MIT.

We had 6 attendees at this meeting and many more

joined the daily calls. That was a lot of energy. We

need it – there is a lot more to write. We hope to

have a draft standard ready at the end of the next

face-to-face meeting in Illinois this fall. There will

be monthly LiveMeeting/Conference calls to keep

us all on task. We’re keeping the “shall” items as lean

as possible, and including a lot of guidance so folks

can determine their own path through SQA. John

Walz is the Vice-Chair of the working group. He and

I presented a talk on the SQA 730 working group at

the Systems and Software Technology (SSTC) Conference

in April 2010.

It is really wonderful networking with peers.

Come join us!


Pathways to Social Responsibility 2011: Successful Practices for

Sustaining the Future – Conference Summary


By Nancy Pasquan

I had the privilege of attending the inaugural

Pathways to Social Responsibility conference at the

Marriott Marquis in San Francisco on June 16 and 17,

2011, on behalf of the ASQ Software Division.

The conference was the first for ASQ around ISO

26000: Guidance on Social Responsibility published

in November 2010. The standard provides a common

vernacular and outlines key areas of impact including

seven Principals: Accountability, Transparency, Ethical

Behavior, Respect for Stakeholder Interests, Respect

for the Rule of Law, Respect for International Norms

of Behavior, and Respect for Human Rights. Seven

Core Subjects are Organizational Governance, Human

Rights, Labor Practices, The Environment, Fair

Operating Practices, Consumer Issues, and Community

Involvement and Development.

The conference location and management were

all excellent. Attendees came from a broad range of

industries, including software, construction, general

manufacturing and communications. Three past

Presidents of ASQ attended as well as a variety of

expert speakers. About 20% of the attendees were

non- ASQ members, with a total of about 100 people

over the two days.

The opening Keynote speaker, John Elkington,

executive Chairman of Volans and the co-founder of

SustainAbility, was excellent and set the tone for the

rest of the conference. Mr. Elkington provided both

definitions and context for the terms Social Responsibility

and the preferred term “sustainability.” On

day two, Mr. Elkington was presented with the ASQ

Spencer Hutchens Jr. Medal for Social Responsibility.

Information on the award is available at

I went to this event with an open mind, one question,

and one concern. My question was “How is

Social Responsibility being defined?”, which the

conference answered in a variety of ways. ISO 26000

provides one answer to the question of definition.

The speakers and attendees had refinements and

additions to that definition. There were many suggestions

over the course of the two days. It is certainly

more than caring for the environment, which

is a start, but only scratches the surface. In the end,

the definition I came away with is that Social Responsibility

is doing the right thing now to preserve our

planet, communities, organizations, families, and

selves for the long term.

My concern was “We aren’t going to try to legislate

SR, are we?” The answer to that was not quite as simple,

as is probably appropriate. ISO 26000 is a guideline,

not a standard, so there are no requirements and

no scoring. Several organizations do provide scoring

and reporting tools (see the Global Reporting Initiative

at for self assessment and

data gathering purposes.

I attended the presentation on implementing ISO

26000 within an existing ISO 9001 management

framework and found it to be useful for thinking

about further exploration within the specific industries

I serve as a consultant.

The most disappointing presentations had to do

with the two surveys in which ASQ participated. Both

speakers failed to provide enough information on the

context and scope of the questions and respondents.

A recurring topic from the conference leaders was

the relationship between SR and Quality, and Quality

practitioners and SR efforts within their respective

organizations. Many see it as their job in terms of

reducing waste and cost. From the presentations,

it seemed to me that corporate leadership, and not

quality, are the strongest proponents of SR and are

the ones that define the flavor of an organization’s efforts.

It was noted by several speakers that there is a

challenge in maintaining forward momentum when

leadership changes.

Software was only mentioned once as far as I

know, and that in the context of reducing paper usage.

Software is an enabling technology for Social

Responsibility, but we need the rest of the sustaining

ingredients to make it work. Commitment from

organizations and individuals are required to achieve

the results such as paperless offices, reduced travel,

etc., that software promises.

The final question to participants was “Should ASQ

continue to participate in the Social Responsibility

space?” My opinion is that ASQ should.


By Linda Westfall

Copyright © 2011 Linda Westfall. All Rights Reserved

Note: The items in these quizzes are NOT from the

past CSQE examinations NOR were they created as

part of the CSQE exam development process.

1 Producing high quality software is directly beneficial

to the customers of that software because:

A. it decreases the effort required to find and fix

the defects.

B. it decreases the total cost of ownership of the


C. it increases the initial cost of purchasing the

software product.

D. it increases the cycle time between releases.

2 Individuals or groups who affect or are affected by

a software project make up the:

A. project team.

B. project sponsors.

C. project’s customers.

D. project’s stakeholders.

3 An example of a 2-tiered architecture is a:

A. messaging architecture.

B. client/server architecture.

C. business to business architecture.

D. object oriented architecture.

5 Which of the following is NOT counted as part of

calculating function points?

A. Internal logical files

B. Internal inquiries

C. External outputs

D. External interface files

6 The time-boxed testing strategy differs from other

testing strategies in that test cases are:

A. automated to increase the amount of regression

testing when the software is changed

B. traced to requirements to ensure complete

test coverage of those requirements

C. executed in priority order to ensure important

tests are executed before time runs out

D. designed prior to the coding of the software

and are used document the acceptance criteria

7 Which of the following Software Configuration

Management (SCM) tools would be used to automate

the process of combining software configuration

units into configuration components or


A. Build scripts

B. Change request tool

C. Status accounting report generator

D. Version control tool

Task A

Jan Feb Mar Apr May

[Answers at the end of the newsletter.]

Task B

Task C

Task D

4 Based on the Gantt shown above, which of the following

tasks was completed ahead of schedule?

A. Task A B. Task B

C. Task C D. Task D



ISE 2011 Conference Summary

By Sue Carroll

The Institute for Software Excellence (ISE) was held

concurrently with the ASQ World Conference on

Quality and Improvement on May 16 – 18, 2011, in

Pittsburgh, PA. Attendees at each session learned

from industry experts, networked with each other,

and some lucky attendees took home various quality

books! We do enjoy our door prizes at Software Division


The first talk was an Introduction to Software

Quality presented by Mark Paulk of Carnegie Mellon

University. This was our highest ever attendance at

an ISE session with 130 attendees! Mark gave a great

overview of software quality concepts – standards,

model, and bodies of knowledge.

The next talk was Experiences Going from Waterfall

to Agile, Process Changes Made and Results in

Doing So presented by Jim Rozum of Westinghouse.

Jim started with some information about agile/

scrum and then described his experiences migrating

to an Agile-Scrum process including degrees of success

obtained. He also included lessons learned.

Then we heard from Randy Trzeciak of the Software

Engineering Institute about What Threats Do You

Have from Your Employees. This was an area I knew

little about but I learned a lot! The Insider Threat

Center at CERT has been researching the threat posed

by insiders since 2001. In that time, we collected and

analyzed hundreds of actual attacks against organizations,

focusing on three primary types of crimes:

Insider Fraud, Insider Theft of Confidential or Sensitive

Information, and Insider Information Technology

(IT) Sabotage. He described how the three types of

crimes typically evolve, potential technical and nontechnical

indicators that organizations may be able to

observe, and CERT’s best practices for prevention and

detection of the insider threat.

The final talk on Monday was Using Organizational

Business Objectives to Guide a Process Improvement

Program by Mary Beth Chrissis of the Software

Engineering Institute. She explained how business

objectives should provide the necessary context to

guide organizational process improvement activities.

She discussed the role of business objective in

process improvement. The role that business objectives

play in implementing selected CMMI practices

and in providing value to the organization was also


Tuesday we had a full day of talks – beginning

with Jim Over from the Software Engineering Institute

talking about The Next Generation of Process

Evolution. Jim Over talked about the Accelerated

Improvement Method (AIM) which integrates and

leverages SEI Technologies. He included background

on CMMI, Scampi assessments, the measuring &

analysis toolkit, the Team Software Process, the

IDEAL model, and deployment strategies. Then he

talked about why and provided a case study to show

how AIM helps companies improve.

Then Dave Zubrow of the Software Engineering

Institute talked about Innovations in the Detection

of Data Anomalies. He provided up to date insight

into research being conducted by the SEI into data

quality. Although there is more and more realization

that data quality is important, there are still areas

where data quality is not considered. We learned

about the impacts of data quality as well as methods

to employ to identify issues and problems within any


Next Linda Westfall of Westfall Team, Inc., provided

a great talk on Analyzing Software Risks – Techniques

for Determining Risk Exposure & Priority.

The primary goal of the risk analysis step of the risk

management process is to analyze the identified list

of risks and prioritize those risks for further planning

and action. During the risk analysis step, each

risk is assessed to determine its context, estimated

probability, estimated loss and timeframe which

are utilized to determine the risks priority. This talk

discussed each step of risk analysis.

Then Christopher Alberts of the Software Engineering

Institute provided some thoughts on Measurement

& Analysis for Software Security Assurance.

Software security assurance is the level of confidence

that software-reliant systems are adequately

planned, acquired, built, and fielded with sufficient

security to meet operational needs, even in the presence

of attacks, failures, accidents, and unexpected

events. The talk gave an overview of SEI research and

development related to software security assurance

measurement and analysis.

Bob Stoddard of the Software Engineering Institute

and David Walker of David Walker SPCS, LLC

repeated a workshop on How to Use the CMMI to

Improve Processes. This workshop was well-received

last year and attendees this year seemed to enjoy

the highly interactive session. Participants identified

a product development process from their work environment

that needs improvement, establish goals

and objectives for the process, perform a gap analysis

using supplied CMMI materials, and establish a

preliminary action plan that can be taken back to the

work environment. Bob and Dave circulated among

the attendees providing guidance. We scheduled

this session at the end of the day thinking that folks

would stay over and get additional assistance – but

that didn’t happen. So I’m afraid that attendees did

not reach the lofty goals for this session. Sorry we

didn’t give you more time!

Wednesday morning took us back to agile with

David Walker presenting Appropriate Use of Agile

Methods in Medical Device Software Development.

This was a joint session with the Biomedical Division.

Dave explored the areas of concern in using Agile

methods and practices in the development of medical

device software. The AAMI Medical Device Software

Standards Committee plans to publish a new

TIR on this topic mid-year 2011. Many details from

this TIR were covered. Dave also had slides from the

FDA with additional thoughts. Bottom line, using

agile is OK as long as all the evidence required by

regulations is provided!

The final talk for ISE 2011 was Communicating

Quality in a Highly Wired World presented by Carol

Dekkers of Quality Plus Technologies, Inc. The last

session of the last day and attendance was great and

attendees had an informative and interesting session.

In this presentation the audience got to see examples

of common presentation missteps such as “Death by

PowerPoint”, “Tilt-- Slide overload”, and “Duh?”.

As chair of ISE 2011, I’d like to thank all the presenters

for their time and expertise. I’d also like to thank

the volunteers and ASQ staff that provided so much

of their time to make sure these sessions were available

to ISE attendees. We all had a great time. Hope

you can join us at ISE 2012.

Join the Planning Team for

the 2012 Institute for

Software Excellence

The ASQ Software

Division is in the planning

phase for the 2012

program for the Institute

for Software Excellence

(ISE). ISE is a component

of the ASQ World

Conference on Quality

and Improvement

which draws thousands

of quality professionals

worldwide. In May 2012, the conference is in Anaheim,


If you would like to volunteer as a speaker, moderator,

or simply assist in planning for this exciting program,

please contact David Walker at walkercsqe@ to discuss your level of involvement.

Take the next step in your ASQ membership! Get

involved! Join the 2012 ISE Planning Team!



Standards Report

By Theresa Hunt

This spring two plenary meetings of JTC1/SC7

were held, April 5-7, 2011, and May 22-27, 2011. This

report briefs some of the results of those meetings.

Since there are too many standards/new initiatives

to list in this report I have selected a few to highlight.

IEEE Computer Society (CS) liaison with JTC1/SC7

The IEEE Computer Society provided a liaison

organization contribution of Draft IEEE Standard

P1012TM/D0.5 Draft Standard for System and Software

Verification and Validation for purposes of

international standardization consideration. IEEE Std

1012-201x is a process standard that defines the V&V

processes in terms of specific activities and related

tasks. The standard also defines the contents of the

V&V plan (VVP), including example formats. This

draft is a major revision to the 2004 version, expanding

the scope of the V&V processes to include systems

and hardware as well as software, and aligning

terminology and structure to be consistent with ISO/

IEC 15288-2008 and ISO/IEC 12207-2008.

JTC 1 /SC 7 invited the IEEE-CS to provide, when

published, IEEE STD 828-2011 Software Configuration

Management as a base document for an ISO/IEC

Configuration Management Standard.

JTC 1 /SC 7 invited the IEEE CS (IEEE 1220) to participate

in joint development of 24748-4 Systems

engineering – Application and management of the

systems engineering process (the revision of ISO/

IEC 26702 Systems engineering – Application and

management of the systems engineering process

has been renumbered as ISO/IEC 24748-4).

New Study Groups

A study group will be established to determine the

approach for the development of a framework for

Service Oriented Systems Engineering (SOSE) and

SOSE Standards. That framework will outlines the

process guidance, critical method and related management

specifications of SOA projects that can be

used in developing, deploying, implementing and

managing SOA solutions: It includes SOA project

stages for design, development, management and

government, and assessment methods for abilities

and responsibility. The terms of reference of this

study group are to: Review existing and emerging

Systems and Software Engineering Frameworks

and Standards; Review existing and emerging SOA

Frameworks and Standards; Clarify the scope and

market requirements for Frameworks for Service Oriented

Systems Engineering Standards; Prepare at a

minimum an annotated outline of such a framework,

and possibly a candidate working draft; and Review

and improve if necessary the New Work Item Proposal

(NWIP) SG-SOA N015 Draft NWIP Software and

System Engineering-Framework for SOA Engineering

Standards V2.

A study group will be established for IT Service

Quality. The terms of reference of this study group

are to: Define the scope of IT service and its market;

Assess the current state of standardization related to

IT service quality within JTC 1 and in other Standards

Development Organizations; Analyze the standardization

requirements of IT service quality; and Submit

the potential NWIP for IT service quality model.

New Work Item Proposals

JTC 1/SC 7 instructed its Secretariat to circulate for

letter ballot, once available, New Work Item Proposals

(NWIPs) for the following:

• a standard on Architecture evaluation, allocated

standard number ISO/IEC 42030.

• a Technical Report on Software Development

Planning - this will be a joint development with

the IEEE-CS, allocated standard number 24748-


• a Technical Report on Systems Integration, allocated

standard number ISO/IEC 24748-6.

• a new standard on Content management for

systems and software lifecycle and service management

documentation, allocated standard

number 26520.

• the revision of “IS 25051: Software engineering

Software product Quality Requirements and

Evaluation (SQuaRE) – Requirements for quality

of COTS software product and instructions for

testing” and associated documents.

• the revision of IS 25000: Software engineering

– SQuaRE – Guide to SQuaRE and associated


• Systems and software engineering – Systems

Standards Report, continued from page 6

• and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation

(SQuaRE) – Measurement of data quality

and associated documents, allocated standard

number 25024.

• Systems and software engineering – SQuaRE–

Measurement of system and software product

quality (revision of ISO/IEC 9126-2 and 9126-3)

and associated documents, allocated standard

number 25023.

• Systems and software engineering – SQuaRE –

Measurement of quality in use” (revision of ISO/

IEC 9126-4) and associated documents, allocated

standard number 25022.

Software and Systems engineering – Specific

requirements for certification of professionals

in software engineering.

Software and Systems engineering – Specific

requirements for certification of professionals

in systems engineering.

Software and Systems engineering – Requirements

for describing Knowledge Areas and

Skills for a given Certification Scheme.

Software and Systems engineering – Requirements

for Certification Schemes Definition for

Information Systems Engineering Professionals.

Other Resolutions

SC7 invited Japan’s National Body to provide an

English translation of their “17 Principles to achieve

system quality” as a fast-track document for publication

in JTC 1 as a Technical Report contingent on the

resolution of the Intellectual Properties issue.

JTC 1/SC 7 instructed its Secretariat to distribute:

• ISO/IEC 15026-3 Systems and Software Assurance

(Integrity levels) for an Final Draft International

Standard (FDIS) ballot.

• ISO/IEC 25063, Systems and software engineering

– SQuaRE – Common Industry Format (CIF)

for usability: Context of use description, for

Draft International Standard (DIS) Ballot.

• ISO/IEC 25064, Systems and software engineering

– SQuaRE – Common Industry Format (CIF)

for Usability – User Needs Report for DIS Ballot.

• ISO/IEC 25065, Systems and software engineering

– SQuaRE – Common Industry Format (CIF)

for usability: User Requirements for CD registration

and CD Ballot.

• ISO/IEC 25066, Systems and software engineering

– SQuaRE – Common Industry Format (CIF)

for Usability – Evaluation Report for CD registration

and CD Ballot.

Remember the latest version of terms and definitions

for ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7 is now available in ISO/

IEC/IEEE 24765 Systems and software engineering

vocabulary at SEVOCAB,

If you are interested in reviewing standards please

contact me at

SQP Journal Article:

Software Quality and

Software Costs

By Capers Jones

Large software projects above 10,000 function

points are hazardous business undertakings. The

cancellation rate for large software projects tops 50

percent. Of large applications that are completed,

many are late and over budget. One of the main

reasons for delay or termination is due to excessive

volumes of serious defects that are not discovered

until testing, and then extend testing cycles far

longer than anticipated. Conversely, large software

projects that are successful are always characterized

by excellence in both defect prevention and defect

removal, including pre-test defect removal. It can

be concluded that achieving state-of-the-art levels

of software quality is perhaps the most important

single objective of software process improvements.

To read more, go to


From The Regions

From The Regions

Region 6

If you are in the Seattle area on the third Thursday

of every month (except December), The Seattle

Area Software Quality Assurance Group (SASQAG)

holds monthly public meetings in the Seattle area.

SASQAG also supports certification and study

groups. If you are in the area and want to attend,

please look at for upcoming

events, directions, and meeting time.

The SASQAG January meeting was a special joint

meeting between folks from SASQAG (http://sasqag.

org), the local IEEE Computer Society chapter


and SeaSPIN ( ). The three organizations

came together for a special presentation by

Joe Justice, a Seattle area lean software consultant

and entrepreneur, who will present on the topic “Beyond

Six Sigma: Agile/Lean/Scrum/Xp/Kanban for

physical manufacturing - building a 100 MPG road

car in 3 months”. We had around 100 people attend

this special event and it was a good way to network

and meet other practitioners around the area.

The Seattle SPIN (Software Process Improvement

Network….The Sport and Politics of Software

Process) is holding meetings on the first Tuesday,

five months a year. The organization is driven with

a single, clear-cut goal in mind: change an organization

in a way that improves that organization’s

ability to develop software. If you are interested in

more information on SeaSpin, you can go to http://

The Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference

2011 will be held October 10-12, 2011, in Portland,

Oregon. It’s time to start thinking about attending

and getting reservations. This year’s theme is

“Delivering Quality”. See for

further information and the “program-at-a-glance”.

News from Mike Kress on AS9115

In April 2010 the SAE announced the release of

AS9115 Quality Management Systems – Requirements

for Aviation, Space and Defense Organizations

– Deliverable Software (Supplement to 9100C).

AS9115 clarifies the requirements for suppliers of

aerospace deliverable software, whether delivered

as a standalone product, embedded in an aerospace

airborne, spaceborne, or ship borne product or field

loadable in such product. AS 9115 is not mandatory,

however, when specified by the acquirer, users

of AS9115 will have higher assurance that the objectives

of AS9100C are met. AS9115 provides greater

depth of detail and granularity for software requirements

than AS9100C. The main new elements

added to AS9100C and AS9115 are risk management,

airborne electronic hardware, critical items,

special requirements and key characteristics. SAE

also recently announced that the guidance material

for AS9115 has been added to the International

Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) Supply Chain management

Handbook available on the IAQG website


This guidance material provides the organization

with guidance for Frequently Asked Questions,

training for auditors, software measurement, auditor

qualification recommendations, and expanded

explanation of the changes and additions in AS9115

from AS9006.

For more information, contact Mike Kress, Americas

Aerospace Quality Group leader for Project # 60,


If you have information on local software quality

and testing events in your area of Region 6, please

send them to me for our events calendar Visit for information on

events around Region 6.

Tom Gilchrist, Region 6 Regional Councilor

Region 7

Congratulations! You, Region 7, have a new liaison

to the Software Division. That would be me, Nancy

Pasquan. Let me introduce myself. I have been a

software process improvement consultant and auditor

for the last 6 years, based out of San Diego. Most

of my work is in the pharmaceutical and medical

device arenas, but I have experience with aerospace

and general manufacturing as well – as long as

there is software involved! I’ve been a member of

ASQ forever and have recently completed two years


Travel, Networking, Knowledge Sharing, and 2 RU Credits

We are actively looking for CSQEs to participate in

the Certification Exam process. We conduct various

workshops at different times during the year. This

is a wonderful opportunity to meet and work with

some of the best quality professionals in the nation.

Types of workshops include:

Item Writing

Work with 16 Professionals to write test questions

in teams of 4 for the CSQE question pool. The questions

will be written for the current Body of Knowledge

(BOK). This is a very rigorous step in the development

and maintenance of the overall CSQE exam

program, but one that is very rewarding.

Item Review

Assist a team of 12 Professionals to review approximately

200 test questions from the CSQE question

pool. The questions were written at a recent item

writing workshop and must be reviewed prior to being

used in any exam. This is a fun, yet serious step

in the development and maintenance of the overall

CSQE exams.

Exam Review

Assist a team of 12 Professionals to review the most

recent CSQE exam and help with the improvement

of the questions that appear in that exam. This is a

fun, yet serious step in the development and maintenance

of the overall CSQE exam.

Participants in these workshops will receive 2 RU

credits to apply toward your recertification. If prework

is required it must be received by the deadline

to receive the full RU credits. NOTE: You must currently

be a Certified Software Quality Engineer and

a current ASQ member to participate.

Participants are required to sign a nondisclosure

agreement. This limits your performing exam

preparation training, authoring, or otherwise sharing

specific knowledge about the examination for

a period of two (2) years, following the last date of

your workshop participation. This is to ensure that

the knowledge you gain about the exam is not used

in a manner that would give an unfair advantage to

anyone sitting for a future exam.

Our next workshop with be an Exam Review workshop

September 16th and 17th at ASQ headquarters

in Milwaukee, WI. If you are interested in volunteering

for this workshop, or other future workshops,

please email Velinda Moore at

Include the types of activities that you

would be interested in participating in and some information

about your background – current job title,

industry, years of experience and whether or not you

have previously participated in the Exam process.

Participation is by formal invitation to ensure we get

a good mix in each session of background, industry,

experience, etc.

From The Regions, Continued

as treasurer for Section 703. I am excited to change

my focus to the whole region and to the Software

Division. Please let me know if there is something

you think needs doing!

The following are just a few of the events happening

in our region:

1. Southern California Software Symposium October

21 - 22, 2011 - Los Angeles, CA -


2. Social Models and Trusted Clouds: The Road

Map to ‘Social’ Security, Peter Coffee July 15, 2011

3. Society for Software Quality | Advancing the Science

and Technologies of Software Quality: San Diego

Chapter July 26: Job Hunting & Resume Mistakes

and August 9: Joint Meeting with ASQ Section 703

Nancy Pasquan, Region 7 Regional Councilor


Answers to the CSQE Quiz


1 Answer B is correct. As the quality of a software product

increases the cost of owning that software decreases.

Examples include:

• Decreases in the number of defects resulting in

increased reliability and decreased cost associated

with software failure

• Increases in usability and efficiency of the software

resulting in decreased costs of operating the software

• Increases in the security or safety of the software

resulting in decreased costs associated with security

breaches or safety incidents

Decreasing the effort required to find and fix the defects

is a benefit to the maintainer of the software which

may indirectly benefit the customer but does not directly

benefit them. Increased initial costs for purchasing the

software is not a benefit to the customer. It may or may

not be a benefit to the customer to increase the cycle

times between releases, this is very dependent on the

context in which the software is being used (for example,

in a highly changing environment, it may be beneficial

to have frequent small releases so that changes are addressed


Reference Page(s): Certified Software Quality Engineering

Handbook by Linda Westfall – page 4-6

CSQE Body of Knowledge Area: I.A.1

2 Answer D is correct. The project stakeholders are individuals

or groups who affect or are affected by a software

project and therefore have some level of influence over

that software project. The project team, project sponsors

and the project’s customers are all project stakeholders.

Reference Page(s): The Certified Software Quality Engineering

Handbook by Linda Westfall – page 73

CSQE Body of Knowledge Area: II.A.2

3 Answer B is correct. A client/server architecture is a

2-tiered where the client is typically an application that

runs on a decentralized computer or workstation and

allows the localization of processing. The client typically

downloads or accesses centralized data that is stored on

the server. The server also typically manages the network

resources and provides access to software tools with

shared licenses.

Reference Page(s): Certified Software Quality Engineering

Handbook by Linda Westfall – page 148

CSQE Body of Knowledge Area: III.B

4 Answer A is correct. In this tracking Gantt chart, the

black bars represent the original baselined schedule, the

dark grey bars represent the actual status to date and the

pale grey bars reflect the new projected schedule. Task

A was started on time and was completed slightly ahead

schedule. Task B started behind schedule and was completed

behind schedule. Task C started behind schedule,

is still in progress, and is projected to complete behind

schedule. Task D started ahead of schedule, is still in

progress, and is projected to complete ahead of schedule.

Reference: The Certified Software Quality Engineering

Handbook by Linda Westfall – pages 263-264

CSQE Body of Knowledge Area: IV.B.1

5 Answer B is correct. Function points are counted

based on adding the weighted counts for each of five

function types: external inputs, external outputs, external

inquiries, internal logical files, external interface files.

Reference: The Certified Software Quality Engineering

Handbook by Linda Westfall – page 327

CSQE Body of Knowledge Area: V.B.1

6 Answer C is correct. In time-box testing, the calendar

time for testing is fixed and the scope of the testing effort

must be adjusted to fit inside that time-box. This can be

accomplished by prioritizing test activities and test cases

based on risk and benefit and then executing the activities

and/or tests in priority order. If time runs out before

all of the activities and tests are accomplished, the lowest

priority test activities ones are left unfinished.

Reference: Certified Software Quality Engineering

Handbook by Linda Westfall – pages 401-402

CSQE Body of Knowledge Area: VI.B.1

7 Answer A is correct. A software build is the process

of combining software configuration units into configuration

components or items. Build scripts are SCM tools

used to automate the build process that would otherwise

require people to perform multiple manual operations.

Reference Page(s): The Certified Software Quality

Engineering Handbook by Linda Westfall – pages 487-488

CSQE Body of Knowledge Area: VII.A.2

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines